"We are super excited to be able to announce at SXSW Interactive that we are developing the MakerBot Digitizer Desktop 3D Scanner," said Bre Pettis, the company's CEO, in a statement on Friday. "It's a natural progression for us to create a product that makes 3D printing even easier. With the MakerBot Digitizer, now everyone will be able to scan a physical item, digitize it, and print it in 3D—with little or no design experience."

According to TechCrunch, the scanner "uses two lasers to map small, breadbox-sized objects and a webcam to create a digital model of any object." Presumably the scanner translates that information into a CAD file.

Frustratingly though, Makerbot has not disclosed any specifics on the Digitizer Desktop 3D Scanner. Its price, availability, features, and specifications are nowhere to be found.

In an e-mail sent to people who signed up for more information on the Digitizer, MakerBot said the scans would be completed in "as little as three minutes."

Ars has reached out to Makerbot for comment and will update this story when we have more information.

Promoted Comments

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is due out in May 2018 from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

At press time, lawyers for Games Workshop and other makers of painfully expensive small plastic objects were too busy preparing themselves 'for cruel war unto the last of our foes' to offer further comment...

Its going to be really weird to see the anti-piracy debates transition from books, movies, and music to physical goods. I really wonder how companies like Lego(chosen because of product not past legal history) will respond to these types of devices when they become common in the consumer market. Will we see similar pushes in Congress but from them? Will manufacturers push for extremely restrictive laws concerning home 3D scanning and printing once it becomes advanced enough to be a threat? Interesting thing to keep an eye on.

Its going to be really weird to see the anti-piracy debates transition from books, movies, and music to physical goods. I really wonder how companies like Lego(chosen because of product not past legal history) will respond to these types of devices when they become common in the consumer market. Will we see similar pushes in Congress but from them? Will manufacturers push for extremely restrictive laws concerning home 3D scanning and printing once it becomes advanced enough to be a threat? Interesting thing to keep an eye on.

I suspect that Lego specifically will be OK for a good while(getting the right 'feel' and tradeoff between ease of assembly/disassembly and sturdiness while assembled requires a high quality injection molding process and quality control and process people who actually give a damn. Even their cheaper, mostly interoperable, competitors, like Mega Bloks, have a somewhat tepid reputation on those grounds, despite using a similar process. No 3D printer that anybody worried about the cost of lego could afford is going to even touch that).

In general, though, total shitstorm predicted. Lots of action figures, plastic FRUs, and model kits are much lower tolerance(or cutting off the imperfections and painting them yourself is part of the hobby) and much of their price is pure 'IP'. That's not going to be pretty...

The problem is of course that you're still going to have to edit the models for anything with complex shapes, adding support structures and tweaks for the quirks of your 3D printer.

Still, putting the two together means you have a replicator, assuming your original object was made of plastic and had no moving parts.

The only thing missing is the color-inkjet-on-a-stick that would allow you to automatically paint the model as well.

I don't know how mature the field is in general(and it wouldn't surprise me if the really good stuff still has a decade or two worth of patents); but algorithmic analysis and optimization of a given 3d model for conversion into a 3d print is hardly unexplored:

I suspect that Lego specifically will be OK for a good while(getting the right 'feel' and tradeoff between ease of assembly/disassembly and sturdiness while assembled requires a high quality injection molding process and quality control and process people who actually give a damn. Even their cheaper, mostly interoperable, competitors, like Mega Bloks, have a somewhat tepid reputation on those grounds, despite using a similar process. No 3D printer that anybody worried about the cost of lego could afford is going to even touch that).

If I were Lego I'd work to create some kind of online subscription based service where users could download official 3D printer schematics for all the various blocks and sets.

I would guess that this would be best suited for relatively simple objects. A laser/webcam rig is going to be hard pressed to get the interior accuracy of small objects such as the interior of a mouth or other similar concave shapes. Which is to the benefit of Lego which is primarily hollow. As for miniatures, I would expect this to impact primarily Forge World pieces instead of most of the standard Games Workshop line.

Will manufacturers push for extremely restrictive laws concerning home 3D scanning and printing once it becomes advanced enough to be a threat?

Maybe, but because manufacturers of physical products have raw materials, shipping, testing and (recently, in some countries) disposal costs to cover, their margins haven't been obscene enough to accumulate the cash required to lobby politicians as effectively as Big Content. At least for the kind of goods that 3D printers can reproduce. The day they can spit out iPhones or Gucci handbags, or someone invents a photocopier for chemicals that can duplicate Chanel #5 (a long way off, but some might say it is inevitable), then the shit will hit the fan.

A shame there's no info, I'd be really curious about how it goes about ensuring strength (assuming it's not trying to print solid objects). That seems like some hardcore processing/mathematics right there.

I don't really see it creating a shitstorm though. This is about bringing 3D scanners into the home, not about them existing at all. It only takes one person with any kind of 3D scanner to stick an object online, then anyone with a 3D printer can access it. Everyone having a 3D scanner may increase the volume of stuff that gets put online, but it's like movies where a few are actually interesting. The fact that only a handful of people get access to leaked copies of CDs or movies doesn't make a scrap of difference, once one person puts it online everyone has it.

And record companies may complain about copying tapes and cds at home, but they've never done anything about it, it's too difficult. Likewise I wouldn't expect anything to happen over creating a copy of a monopoly figurine. Putting online how to make a monopoly set, on the other hand...

First is the simplest, Why is it in a separate device?Why not make the existing printers slightly larger and give them a secondary part table for scanning(to hold the object at the correct height).

Scan object , remove the object while the computer processes data, enter number of copies and let it rip.

The other thought is when is this going to be more than novelty tech. We have the ability to create things like O-rings, gaskets, etc in real time. Granted they are generally cheap but not having the correct O-ring can stop an entire manufacturing plant over a $.50 part. Metallurgy isn't there for things like screws, nuts, bolts, etc. But o-rings, plastic supports, heck even part masking covers for spray painters all could be made on demand in real time.

Maybe, but because manufacturers of physical products have raw materials, shipping, testing and (recently, in some countries) disposal costs to cover, their margins haven't been obscene enough to accumulate the cash required to lobby politicians as effectively as Big Content. At least for the kind of goods that 3D printers can reproduce.

Wouldn't that thin profit margin give them far more reason to fight to keep it?

I suspect that Lego specifically will be OK for a good while(getting the right 'feel' and tradeoff between ease of assembly/disassembly and sturdiness while assembled requires a high quality injection molding process and quality control and process people who actually give a damn. Even their cheaper, mostly interoperable, competitors, like Mega Bloks, have a somewhat tepid reputation on those grounds, despite using a similar process. No 3D printer that anybody worried about the cost of lego could afford is going to even touch that).

If I were Lego I'd work to create some kind of online subscription based service where users could download official 3D printer schematics for all the various blocks and sets.

Exactly. When it comes down to it, regardless of the IP problems, LEGO's biggest problem with 3D printing is a machine that let's you build anything you want from smaller pieces of plastic... just like LEGOs themselves. Who wants to build pixelated (voxelated?) spaceships from LEGO bricks when you can just build a smooth, flashy one on the computer and print it yourself?

Maybe, but because manufacturers of physical products have raw materials, shipping, testing and (recently, in some countries) disposal costs to cover, their margins haven't been obscene enough to accumulate the cash required to lobby politicians as effectively as Big Content. At least for the kind of goods that 3D printers can reproduce.

Wouldn't that thin profit margin give them far more reason to fight to keep it?

It would give them the motive, yes, but I think the OP meant their thing profit margins would not allow them enough buying power in congress.

When it comes down to it, regardless of the IP problems, LEGO's biggest problem with 3D printing is a machine that let's you build anything you want from smaller pieces of plastic... just like LEGOs themselves. Who wants to build pixelated (voxelated?) spaceships from LEGO bricks when you can just build a smooth, flashy one on the computer and print it yourself?

I'd be on the smooth, flashy model side myself, however I can see attractions for different types of people on both sides of that argument.

Its going to be really weird to see the anti-piracy debates transition from books, movies, and music to physical goods. I really wonder how companies like Lego(chosen because of product not past legal history) will respond to these types of devices when they become common in the consumer market. Will we see similar pushes in Congress but from them? Will manufacturers push for extremely restrictive laws concerning home 3D scanning and printing once it becomes advanced enough to be a threat? Interesting thing to keep an eye on.

I suspect that Lego specifically will be OK for a good while(getting the right 'feel' and tradeoff between ease of assembly/disassembly and sturdiness while assembled requires a high quality injection molding process and quality control and process people who actually give a damn. Even their cheaper, mostly interoperable, competitors, like Mega Bloks, have a somewhat tepid reputation on those grounds, despite using a similar process. No 3D printer that anybody worried about the cost of lego could afford is going to even touch that).

I think Lego is a really interesting example in this space. It seems like 3D printing of blocks could be considered value-add for the company, at least in the near term. For all those people who create incredibly complex Lego builds, the ability to easily spin up custom parts would be a godsend. Plus, as you mention, it will be a long time before printed blocks could come anywhere close to competing with industrial scale injection molded ABS on cost. Printing out complete sets wouldn't make any sense at this point, and wouldn't do anything to steal market share from Lego.

fuzzyfuzzyfungus wrote:

In general, though, total shitstorm predicted. Lots of action figures, plastic FRUs, and model kits are much lower tolerance(or cutting off the imperfections and painting them yourself is part of the hobby) and much of their price is pure 'IP'. That's not going to be pretty...

Have companies like Games Workshop already been fairly aggressive with take-downs of 3D models? A quick search for Warhammer on thing verse turns up a few models, but not much. I guess as soon as scanners start getting into peoples hands, they'll have to start sending out a torrent of DMCA requests. If the scanning and printing is all done locally, I don't know how you could even hope to identify infringement, let alone stop it. Try to mandate pattern matching in software or even in the printer itself? Shitstorm indeed...

At press time, lawyers for Games Workshop and other makers of painfully expensive small plastic objects were too busy preparing themselves 'for cruel war unto the last of our foes' to offer further comment...

Well, I do need a few more squads of Terminators and a few more of these shoulderpads and a couple of ....

At press time, lawyers for Games Workshop and other makers of painfully expensive small plastic objects were too busy preparing themselves 'for cruel war unto the last of our foes' to offer further comment...

I'd like a decent 3D scanner for the home, primarily for our kid's endless art projects. They're all pretty cool, but you can't just keep everything they make at school, the house isn't big enough. I scan the flat ones, but I'd love to be able to 3D-image their other projects, so we have a nice record after they get recycled.

I suspect that Lego specifically will be OK for a good while(getting the right 'feel' and tradeoff between ease of assembly/disassembly and sturdiness while assembled requires a high quality injection molding process and quality control and process people who actually give a damn. Even their cheaper, mostly interoperable, competitors, like Mega Bloks, have a somewhat tepid reputation on those grounds, despite using a similar process. No 3D printer that anybody worried about the cost of lego could afford is going to even touch that).

If I were Lego I'd work to create some kind of online subscription based service where users could download official 3D printer schematics for all the various blocks and sets.

If I were Lego, at the moment at least, I wouldn't be too worried. To print a block would take too much time and be too expensive. I do understand that the speed and cost of these processes will come down eventually...

The problem is of course that you're still going to have to edit the models for anything with complex shapes, adding support structures and tweaks for the quirks of your 3D printer.

Still, putting the two together means you have a replicator, assuming your original object was made of plastic and had no moving parts.

The only thing missing is the color-inkjet-on-a-stick that would allow you to automatically paint the model as well.

I don't know how mature the field is in general(and it wouldn't surprise me if the really good stuff still has a decade or two worth of patents); but algorithmic analysis and optimization of a given 3d model for conversion into a 3d print is hardly unexplored:

This. As someone who has been working with FDM for something like 15 years now, I completely agree that none of this is really new tech. Nor is it new for salesmen to talk about how this 3D scanner combined with that 3D printer makes duplicating stuff simple. The reality is markedly different...

What is new is better components on the low end of the price scale making it easier and cheaper to put something like this together. It's a lot harder to sell 'Look while i combine this 30-year-old tech with this 20-year-old tech in the same way everyone else did 15 years ago' than it is to say 'look - it's a MK1 MOD 0 Replicator!'

Exactly. When it comes down to it, regardless of the IP problems, LEGO's biggest problem with 3D printing is a machine that let's you build anything you want from smaller pieces of plastic... just like LEGOs themselves. Who wants to build pixelated (voxelated?) spaceships from LEGO bricks when you can just build a smooth, flashy one on the computer and print it yourself?

Right there...

I'm never gonna 3D Print LEGO bricks. I'm just gonna print whatever the bricks would have created in the first place. Then recycle the material in a week when my kid gets tired of playing with it and moves on to the next trend.

And speaking of: nobody has bothered to mention the fact that if you can recycle these objects quickly and easily, this is much more ecologically sound than more conventional retail channels.

so anybody got any recommendations on getting into 3D printing on the cheap? I'm fairly mechanical, and can solder, but would be leery of soldering ICs.

Commercialized versions of the reprap project are what the low-cost FDM printer market is largely made up of. You can assemble the parts you are comfortable with assembling and get the electronics in a variety of ways, some of which won't involve any soldering at all.

I suspect that Lego specifically will be OK for a good while(getting the right 'feel' and tradeoff between ease of assembly/disassembly and sturdiness while assembled requires a high quality injection molding process and quality control and process people who actually give a damn. Even their cheaper, mostly interoperable, competitors, like Mega Bloks, have a somewhat tepid reputation on those grounds, despite using a similar process. No 3D printer that anybody worried about the cost of lego could afford is going to even touch that).

If I were Lego I'd work to create some kind of online subscription based service where users could download official 3D printer schematics for all the various blocks and sets.

Search for 'LEGO CAD' on Google and you'll find a vibrant open-source community that has been around for a while working on this, too.

Legos work because Lego is obsessive about making perfect blocks that fit just right. That's fantastically difficult to do even with a tightly controlled process because it requires tolerances of something like 0.0001" (or less) in the molds as well as precise heat and feedstock control. Even the large and expensive commercial rapid prototyping systems with 30+ years of engineering behind them can't get that kind of accuracy. I don't think Lego has much to worry about.

Exactly. When it comes down to it, regardless of the IP problems, LEGO's biggest problem with 3D printing is a machine that let's you build anything you want from smaller pieces of plastic... just like LEGOs themselves. Who wants to build pixelated (voxelated?) spaceships from LEGO bricks when you can just build a smooth, flashy one on the computer and print it yourself?

Right there...

I'm never gonna 3D Print LEGO bricks. I'm just gonna print whatever the bricks would have created in the first place. Then recycle the material in a week when my kid gets tired of playing with it and moves on to the next trend.

And speaking of: nobody has bothered to mention the fact that if you can recycle these objects quickly and easily, this is much more ecologically sound than more conventional retail channels.

Actually, you generally can't recycle this stuff into printable material yourself. The PLA used in the low cost systems absorbs too much moisture to be easily re-extruded without additional processing. Drawing a sufficiently consistent filament from processed chips in a home workshop environment would be pretty difficult, but you might be able to get around that with better sensors in the extrusion head to monitor volume rather than just counting inches of feed.

Anyone have any idea how the scanner works? Given the announced scan time and the way the prototype looks, I'm guessing it's a variation of a white-light scanner that uses stripes of light at contrasting angles to get a 3D image, then post-processes it into a model. Laser-based scanners generate and collect far too much data to complete a scan at any reasonable degree of precision in 3 min.

If anyone was at the announcement, you'd be able to confirm that if you saw the scanner operating.

For Games Workshop, the risk isn't (I think) so much sharing the designs around, as buying ONE of something, and making a lot more of it.

AKA: I have one of each type of genestealer... and I print a bazillion of them for my next Tyranid army. Then get carpal tunnel painting them.

Or some of the ones where they charge quite a bit for small numbers, making it more approaching cost-effective to knock a few more out to fill out the army.

Depending on how well the scanner does, you might be able to scan a full mini, put the scan in a CAD app, pull off an arm, and print just the 'extra' pieces you want to customize the armament on your other figs.

All of this appeals to me. And I've avoided 40k on tabletops (aside from the accursedly delicious RPGs put out) for the most part over the years.

The only thing missing is the color-inkjet-on-a-stick that would allow you to automatically paint the model as well.

Industrial equipment that does that already exists. Lower-end machines cost about $400,000. I've actually seen them firsthand, watched them at work, and they are really, really stupidly amazing. 4 robotic arms w/nozzles that follow a program to paint a part to exacting specifications. Or 6 arms. Another with 12. Really stupidly awesome.

It's just a matter of time until those are minified and available for $100k, then $50k, then $2k for a home unit, and perhaps then the cost of a microwave (eventually).

Replication technology is going to really revolutionize the marketplace. And potentially destroy much of it as well.